Zero Sum Games are no substitute for the realities of economics.
This is an exemplar of how the assumption or argument of no bias just because no pharma company is involved has little merit. The game mentioned in this abstract is a a zero sum game. It is based on the world view that for someone to gain then someone has to lose. That is not how a market economy works. Unless capital and labor both profit, then there is no motivation for an enterprise. John Lloyd Scharf 00:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of going very off-topic here, "altruistic" behavior can be done for completely selfish behavior as well. There's one anecdote of someone asking an otherwise stingy old man why he gives money to the local homeless shelter and he replied, "Because I don't want the bums sleeping on my front steps instead." Unfortunately many schools of economic thought are based on mechanistic epistemology that does assume everything is zero sum, and don't have theories to explain altruistic behavior. One exception is the Austrian school of economics which is based on the study of praxeology, or human action. Their marginal utility theory can also explain how both sides can profit from an exchange as well as why people will voluntarily engage in altruistic behavior. The marginal utility theory can also explain why the subject in this experiment would be willing to give up some of the money/stickers because the marginal value of additional money/stickers is less valuable than giving them to someone else. Marginal utility theory is not unique to the Austrian school, but other schools assume that utility is quantifiable when it is impossible to quantify the satisfaction of giving up money/stickers to someone else. Jlick 04:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)